another_someone

A market must operate on trust, and trust can only exist if there are enforceable rules, therefore a market can only exist where laws exist to define the rules for that market.

Ofcourse, the more complex question exists where one asks what kind of rules are legitimate and conducive to the efficient running of a market.

As I said above, a market requires trust, which also means that rules must be seen to be consistent, both between participants in the market, and as far as possible, over time. Any inconsistency in the rules will undermine the faith people place in the rules, and so will undermine the functioning of the market. The players in a market will only function properly if they trust that the rules they expected to operate are seen to operate, and are seen to operate consistently.

EMERGENCE is de-individualised process taking shape in non-centralised systems, enforced by not necessarily intertwined actions of multiple agents. Of course, due to limitations/imperfections of human software bio-processor (human brain), markets don't work perfect.

Other examples of EMERGENT PROCESSES are evolution and memolution.

That is why markets are superior to planned economy, because planned economy cannot predetermine what information to be sent to right parameter for optimal development of capacity. But, theoretically, highly advanced intelligence processor (like CYBORG) could of course plan perfect planned system. The outcome of system is determined by level of information the central processor of agent could analyse and catalogise. Human software bio-processor is insufficient to determine that, which is why markets cannot and will not operate on an optimal level given current capacity of human bio-processors.

Cybernetic software upgrades are necessary in order to be able to analyse and structure more data about emergent processes.

Human bioprocessor do not have STORAGE CAPACITY and OPERATIVE SYSTEMS to manage level of complexity we see in market today. Human bioprocessor must be upgraded, to better adapt to circumstances around.

What makes market superior to planned economy is level of INNOVATION because of market dynamism. Bad side is that resources still get invested in sub-optimal areas.

In market economy, demand is measured after capital. Small rich elite has much demand, while physically sub-optimated individuals are malnutritioned and inefficiently maintained, due to inefficient distribution of demand. Therefore, information about demand will never be correct under market economy.

Visual evidence:

PIC_001: Golden toilet.

PIC_002: Malnutritioned units.

PIC_003: Waste of nutrients.

Need any more evidence that human ability to comprehend and analyse information is suboptimated, do you not?

You see, in market economy, resources tend to cluster because of holonic nature of market. That leads to sub-optimal areas, like golden toilets, becoming "optimal" areas because concentration of wealth, while malnutritioned units are "sub-optimal" due to lack of capital.

another_someone

Bad side [of a market] is that resources still get invested in sub-optimal areas.

This is the argument that the Marxists used, and they singularly failed to achieve better efficiency than the market could achieve. It is theoretically possible to imagine a more efficient directed economy, but in practice the complexity of real economies, and the unpredictability of the demands (and even the supply) upon the economy, means that it is beyond human capacity to do so (and contrary to human nature that humans can act sufficiently without regard to their own self interest so as not to distort the economy to their advantage even if they could in theory construct an efficient centrally controlled economy).

another_someone

We see emergence in nature. Yet, nature is not regulated by rules and laws.

Markets tend to regulate rules and laws, not the other way around, friend.

You might say that nature is not governed by human laws, but it is governed by laws - the laws of nature.

The difference is that a market is a human construct (although simple systems of barter might be regarded as an area that lies between the two, but the moment you use abstract measurements of value, then you are dealing with human systems that go beyond the laws applicable to most other aspects of nature).

another_someone

Incidentally, lest there be any confusion in what I mean by regulation (the term could be ambiguous, and I don't want us to be arguing a point under a misunderstanding); by regulation, I mean such things as regulating against insider dealing, or against the counterfeiting of money. I am not suggesting that regulation should be setting prices.

It certainly can be argued that market can, and did, operate without specific regulations being in force (e.g. the laws on insider trading are fairly recent), but modern sophisticated markets could not have arisen in the absence of any regulation at all (the exact laws matter less than that there must be a commonly agreed and effectively enforced legal framework).

I doubt you could produce any system of human design that a human cannot find a way of undermining - what man can make, man can break.

Yes, legal frameworks do require enforcement, and are not 100% effective. As I said above, the primary function of these laws is the engender trust in the system. A system that is 99.9% enforced is sufficient to maintain trust (clearly, if you have 30% of the people involved in a system in violation of the rules of the system, then the system is broken - but if 0.1% of the people involved are in breach of the rules, this is a tolerable imperfection in the system).

If not, they are ineffective firewalls against viruses. We need either better firewall systems, or new economic operative system.

That is impossible, laws prevent people doing things in the interest of everyone or in the interests of a group etc. Sounds like your suggesting that all laws should be impossible to break. That is impossible to achieve and if it was achieved then there would be no need for police or judges etc. That's never going to happen.

another_someone

If not, they are ineffective firewalls against viruses. We need either better firewall systems, or new economic operative system.

As I said, what humans can make, humans can break.

I do not disagree that you can make systems that are more difficult to compromise, but it is humanly impossible to make a system that cannot be compromised. The question is at what point do you have the laws of diminishing return in terms of putting the effort into further improvement (this is a question that applies at any given moment in time - and it is quite possible that tomorrow you can design a more robust system than today - but even tomorrows system will not be unbreakable).

Rule of entropy: Chaos and disorder tend to increase in closed systems without sufficient countermeasures. Since world market is closed system, entropy would eventually increase. Humanity cannot expect to survive by utilising resources inefficiently and in interests of unnecessary expansion of consumption.

Definition: Unsustainability.

As earlier stated: Human bio-processor is insufficient to utilise such complex information in optimal way. Enhancements are advised.

Fun you think that markets "must" be irrational, since economists state that in ideal market economy consumer knows about all information about needs, prices and is able to rationally plan its consumption.

sooyeah

Yes mall, a huge building with shops and schools to house everyone equally, in which everyone lives in a cell/block apartment. That would probably have no windows etc.

Energy accounting, ok but I can't see people going for it, your giving a monetary value to, and sharing out, units of energy, evenly to everyone. It's a nice idea but I just don't think it would work in practice. However, you might be able to join it to the current system and somehow gain an overall benefit for everyone.

Robots doing all the work, that could happen but at the same time some would resist it(the Luddites for one), it would also be boring I enjoy working.

I take it your also removing international trading as the system supports itself?

another_someone

Well wait then, if the market has to be irrational, is it not the case that a person would have to act irrationally and think irrationally, to be and work with-in it?

No - it simply means that humans cannot predict the outcome of their actions upon the market. A market that is capable of being rationally controlled by a single player within the market, or a small group of players in the market, is a broken market.

The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks.
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors
and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators,
sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.